New Voices: What Australia can learn from PNG

DANIELLE CAVE – The Interpreter /Lowy Institute

THE RECENT LOWY INSTITUTE PNG New Voices Conference was a much-needed shock to the complacency I have become attuned to as a member of Australia's international policy community.

It was the best Lowy Institute conference I have ever attended. In fact it was the best conference I have ever attended full stop. This is because again and again the speakers demonstrated qualities that are rare in Australian-based public discussion: passion, frankness, courage, creativity and a talent for generating new ideas. The determination to get their views across shown by those who participated was infectious. 

PNG Government representatives (from Foreign Affairs, Treasury and Sports), business owners, senior NGO managers, economists, journalists, artists, students and future political candidates gave honest and considered views of where they see their country going and why PNG's politicians are not doing enough to deliver for the people they serve. Now, over email and social media, these same people are forming new networks, debating policy ideas and coordinating future meet-ups, interviews and events.

PNG public servants that spoke at PNG New Voices were careful to explain that 'the views in my speech don't necessarily represent the views of the government of PNG', before presenting fresh and frank perspectives, strong opinions and creative policy ideas. I can't image an Australian public servant able or willing to do the same.

Australia's international policy expertise within the public service is increasingly locked away from public view and public discussion. Trapped in rigid hierarchies and spread across about a dozen internationally-focused government departments, most will only reappear when they jump ship into a non-government or private sector role.

Too many of these specialists spend more time briefing, coordinating and thinking about their department's place in Canberra (and their branch's place in their department, and so on) than using their knowledge to inform international policy formulation. The burden and cyclical nature of the vast demand for briefings – for politicians, senior government employees and even for mid-level public servants – is inhibiting the strategic capabilities of the public service. 
 
Australian Government departments, intentionally or unintentionally, hinder public debate by putting up barriers that limit and discourage the participation of policymakers and public servants. The requirements to get clearance to engage in public discussion can be so demanding that a policymaker needs to assess whether it's worth their time and effort.

It's rare to see an Australian public servant ask a question in a public forum, let alone offer their opinion or idea on a topic. The barriers to participate in public discourse that have helped contribute to the over-cautious nature of Australia's internationally-focused policymakers need to be abolished. This inactive approach to participating in public discussion and debate is self-harming and short-sighted for Australia, a country which sees itself as a creative middle power.

Australia's international policy community is facing a serious predicament. The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have, at their disposal, an over-cautious, under-utilised and under-resourced (in the case of Foreign Affairs) crop of international policymakers. Worst of all, new ideas are few and far between. Even when a policy idea does survive the gauntlet of an inflexible, hierarchical clearance processes, it will not always be well communicated and may not even come to the attention to other international policy segments of the Australian public. 

By putting a padlock on our public servants the  Australian Government is essentially under-employing one of its most important resources. This knowledge and expertise would help inform, not hinder, Australia's international policy debate.

The over 100 Papua New Guineans who participated in PNG New Voices taught me how much Australia could learn from Papua New Guinea if only we would pay attention and listen. New ideas were being thrown up by speakers and participants. Those of us typing up notes and tweeting via #PNGNewVoices struggled to keep up. I heard more good policy ideas on 22 October in Port Moresby than I have heard over the last year in Australia's foreign policy discussions (both publicly discussed and behind closed doors).

Are Papua New Guineans better at thinking outside the box? Does the Australian public service even value new ideas and creative policy thinking? Are government policymakers, so caught up with internal administration and briefing, less informed about international developments? Is Australia always destined to host an international policy debate where policymakers rarely take part?

Sadly, Australian government agencies are not known for their ability to generate new and creative policy thinking. But this could change. Change needs to trickle down from confident leadership, both at the political and departmental level, that trusts the capabilities of the public servants they employ.

No one at PNG New Voices defended or made excuses for poor policy. No one toed the line. Refreshingly, no one spoke from a dry and unimaginative set of talking points. No one took the opportunity to lecture another group or a country. And no one criticised those who disagreed with them, instead welcoming different views and seeing this as an opportunity to take part in an informed debate. After all, a strong public discussion means that policy has been challenged and debated, and a more informed policy is good for any country. Papua New Guineans at the conference understood and encouraged this. The same attitude to international policy debate needs to develop in Australia.

Australia's international policy community is performing at partial strength. Instead of foreign policy debates flourishing as Australia faces an increasing set of complex international challenges – hosting the G20 in 2014; wedged between our core ally and key trading partner; taking on a term in the UNSC; facing the possibility of conflict in Asia – the debate is flat. And worse off because of the lack of Australian policymaker participation.

It took listening to the depth of talent that exists within Papua New Guinea's crop of emerging leaders to appreciate just how lethargic and tepid Australia's international policy community has become. Where is the passion for informed and new ideas for Australia's future place in the world? And importantly, where are Australia's emerging crop of international policy leaders? I certainly can't hear them.

Comments

[Ganjiki D Wayne]

Conferences in PNG are always passionate and enlightening. We're not afraid of being passionate about what we believe in.

At one point I was cautioned by a well-meaning Aussie adviser about my private opinions and my public service.

It may be true what you say about you Aussies possibly underemploying your public servants by stifling their expression of opinions.

But in PNG we kind of have a general acceptance of private opinions--coming from both private and public personnel. At least at this stage of our development.

Maybe as we become more "advanced" like Australia we might start feeling insecure about voicing personal opinions.

[Andrew Pasha]

Thanks for sharing with us.

[Bernard Yegiora]

At face value she is not making comparisons in the piece but if you think deeply you will see that the underlying trigger that got them talking is the level of development or quality and standard of life.

Their fresh perspective was engineered due to an observation of the unequal level of infrastructure development in both rural and urban areas.

Coffee and vegetable farmers from the Salt Nomane area in South Simbu walk for miles to the nearest road network to find an extensive form of land transport to transport their goods to the market.

No luxury of a smooth road or a railway. As well, the type of vehicle they travel on in most cases has reached the maximum number of years.

Also the gap between rich and poor has in one way or another affected their perspective.

Imagine walking out of Vulupindi Haus. The - building which houses the Department of Finance and National Planning at Waigani - to see buai and cigarette sellers dashing about frantically in the hope of selling their products.

Their goal for the day is to make enough money to buy a packet of rice and a tray of lamb neck chops from New Zealand, which is the cheapest form of protein apart from the canned ones.

To them this is the meal of the week, eaten once or twice as an alternative.

That event was a rare occasion. In normal circumstances the situation is similar to Australia. Public servants in DFAT will be locked away from public view and discussion.

Students of international relations and foreign policy are given the cold shoulder when they turn up at the office inquiring about the current foreign policy or other topics of interest

The policy experts in Canberra do not want to 'Cry Wolf' because maybe the challenges and problems faced by Australia are not huge in comparison to PNG, or maybe there is no pressing issue at all to discuss and debate.

I stand to be corrected or enlightened by someone more knowledgeable in Australian bureaucratic politics.

[Harold Weekes]

I think it is important to compare and contrast countries.

She is not comparing the levels of development or quality and standard of life between PNG & Australia, as you are, which has nothing to do with the points she raised.

And who is crying wolf? It is important to get fresh perspectives on issues. And I think it is naive to think otherwise.

[Bernard Yegiora]

In its evolutionary path Australia is 100 steps ahead of PNG.

I think the writer Is a bit naive to compare the scenario she observes in PNG to Australia.

What she observed was a one off situation where public servants and others came together to air their views because of the situation the country is in.

Australia is much more advanced and the standard and quality of living is very different.

As a result there is no need for the people whom she mentioned in the piece to cry wolf.

[Sean Smith]

I saw the opinions of many Papua New Guineans about the New Voices conference on Sharp Talk and on Twitter through the hashtag #PNGnewvoices.

And here is another opinion in Alexander Rheeney's: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/tokpisin/radio/onairhighlights/lowy-institute-konfrens-long-png-ibin-gutpela-tru/1035178

[Bernard Yegiora]

A very interesting conference. The knowledge gap between the elites and the ordinary people is so huge.

Most of what was shared at the conference was based on personal opinions and general observation, according to this article and others by Jenny Hayward-Jones and Annmaree O'Keefe respectively.

We do not know what PNG is thinking and saying as a nation.

We need to conduct nationwide polls and surveys to measure the understanding and opinion of the general population in order to find a way forward.

For ideas to be credible and inclusive it must be based on scientific research and not on cognitive bias.

Papua New Guineans are dreamers and talkers, it is in our DNA.

The point is that in-depth research will make the policy formulation process more solid.

For international relations there is no organization like the Lowy Institute in PNG that could give the best advice to the government.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not have the capacity to conduct research as well as practically implementing whatever policy that is in place.

This is where academia comes in but there is at the moment a big vacuum in PNG.

This is my understanding of the issue at hand.

[John Fowke]

Onya, Danielle! This is as an evocative as it is a concise expression of a situation which we, the simple but watchful observers of events feel, but don't actually know to exist.

Please try hard to get your opinion-piece published in The Weekend Oz and the other weekend papers. Does Rowan Callick have a copy, for instance?

Keep on keeping on, lady. We need your voice to be heard.

[Mrs Barbara Short]

Good observations, Danielle.

As a retired teacher, trying to help some of our New Australians settle into our society here in Epping ("E Ping to some), I am disappointed by the local MPs lack of interest in the big topics such as international relations.

From what you say it appears that they are probably restricted in what they can say about these matters.

The MPs are more concerned with the little things of life in Australia and seem to have lost touch with the big picture of Australia and its International Relations.

Our prime minister has reminded Australians that we have to learn to live with Asia. Pity she didn't include Pacific islands as well!

The ABC has its Asia-Pacific Focus and I feel this is the appropriate way of looking at our neighbours. Sadly, recently, we have heard a lot from the Asians but Bill needs to include more on the Pacific.

At the street level there appear to be few discussions on what is happening to our society and the effects it is having on our culture.

I can see the international challenges that face Australia and it is certainly time for all Australians to be talking about them, not just leaving it up to the Big Boys who are All Talk with often Little Understanding.